Now, in any case, I don’t know about you, but when someone says that a “terrifying number” of a certain type of people are out to get you, I get the impression that I need to be concerned about anyone I meet who happens to be from this group. But then again, Sam Harris tends to go back and forth on his views, hence the need for him to dedicate pages of statements clarifying what he meant when he said blah, blah, blah. In the end, Harris comes across as a fear spreading war mongerer to anyone who has an ounce of discernment.

I assume by Arslan assume you mean Raza Aslan. But in the 1 1/2 hour monologue by Sam, Raza is nowhere to be found. Another smokescreen?

Stay Well
Wot

Yes, Raza Aslan. I don’t know why the link isn’t working properly. Anyway, feel free to Google it… it’s not hard to find. So no, not another smokescreen. Why would you say that anyway when my response provides ample evidence for my claim regarding Sam Harris, despite referring to that specific video? Is it that hard for you to face the facts? And you asked me to grow up? Where is your maturity if you can’t accept the truth of a thing when it comes to you?

All the best.

Now Raza Aslan is the guy who failed to unequivocally condemn honor killings. He says it simply requires “more study”. When a Muslim man hires 5 Muslim thugs to strangle his daughter with a shoelace and then burries her in a suitcase 6 feet below the rear patio with the help of his brother, just what study is required to fully understand this? I know, I know, if I studied the Koran more under the guidance of Islamic scholars, I would fully understand this. But that is my fear, not my ambition.
I already watched the video where Sam debates and destroys Raza. No need to provide the link.

Now, in any case, I don’t know about you, but when someone says that a “terrifying number” of a certain type of people are out to get you, I get the impression that I need to be concerned about anyone I meet who happens to be from this group. But then again, Sam Harris tends to go back and forth on his views, hence the need for him to dedicate pages of statements clarifying what he meant when he said blah, blah, blah. In the end, Harris comes across as a fear spreading war mongerer to anyone who has an ounce of discernment.

I assume by Arslan assume you mean Raza Aslan. But in the 1 1/2 hour monologue by Sam, Raza is nowhere to be found. Another smokescreen?

Stay Well
Wot

Yes, Raza Aslan. I don’t know why the link isn’t working properly. Anyway, feel free to Google it… it’s not hard to find. So no, not another smokescreen. Why would you say that anyway when my response provides ample evidence for my claim regarding Sam Harris, despite referring to that specific video? Is it that hard for you to face the facts? And you asked me to grow up? Where is your maturity if you can’t accept the truth of a thing when it comes to you?

All the best.

Now Raza Aslan is the guy who failed to unequivocally condemn honor killings. He says it simply requires “more study”. When a Muslim man hires 5 Muslim thugs to strangle his daughter with a shoelace and then burries her in a suitcase 6 feet below the rear patio with the help of his brother, just what study is required to fully understand this? I know, I know, if I studied the Koran more under the guidance of Islamic scholars, I would fully understand this. But that is my fear, not my ambition.
I already watched the video where Sam debates and destroys Raza. No need to provide the link.

Stay Well
Wot

How Sam ‘destroys’ Raza is not very clear. They each have some valid points. But that was not the point of what we were discussing here. Remember, we were talking about Sam Harris’ ignorance/lies about Islam and Muslims. Some of his ignorance is revealed in that debate.

As to honor killings, it has been condemned over and over. I’ve posted an article by Imam Zaid Shakir on this issue already. Like I said, your late in the game. My advice, get educated, or stay silent.

Now, in any case, I don’t know about you, but when someone says that a “terrifying number” of a certain type of people are out to get you, I get the impression that I need to be concerned about anyone I meet who happens to be from this group. But then again, Sam Harris tends to go back and forth on his views, hence the need for him to dedicate pages of statements clarifying what he meant when he said blah, blah, blah. In the end, Harris comes across as a fear spreading war mongerer to anyone who has an ounce of discernment.

I assume by Arslan assume you mean Raza Aslan. But in the 1 1/2 hour monologue by Sam, Raza is nowhere to be found. Another smokescreen?

Stay Well
Wot

Yes, Raza Aslan. I don’t know why the link isn’t working properly. Anyway, feel free to Google it… it’s not hard to find. So no, not another smokescreen. Why would you say that anyway when my response provides ample evidence for my claim regarding Sam Harris, despite referring to that specific video? Is it that hard for you to face the facts? And you asked me to grow up? Where is your maturity if you can’t accept the truth of a thing when it comes to you?

All the best.

Now Raza Aslan is the guy who failed to unequivocally condemn honor killings. He says it simply requires “more study”. When a Muslim man hires 5 Muslim thugs to strangle his daughter with a shoelace and then burries her in a suitcase 6 feet below the rear patio with the help of his brother, just what study is required to fully understand this? I know, I know, if I studied the Koran more under the guidance of Islamic scholars, I would fully understand this. But that is my fear, not my ambition.
I already watched the video where Sam debates and destroys Raza. No need to provide the link.

Stay Well
Wot

How Sam ‘destroys’ Raza is not very clear. They each have some valid points. But that was not the point of what we were discussing here. Remember, we were talking about Sam Harris’ ignorance/lies about Islam and Muslims. Some of his ignorance is revealed in that debate.

As to honor killings, it has been condemned over and over. I’ve posted an article by Imam Zaid Shakir on this issue already. Like I said, your late in the game. My advice, get educated, or stay silent.

Please point out the specific ignorance displayed by Sam in the Raza debate. You said it, now support it. And do point out where Raza condemns honor killing anywhere. Simply referring me to your “Imam of the Day” just won’t cut it.

Why is it that you continue to accuse everyone of ignorance except yourself. First warning sign you know.
Thanks for your advice to be silent but I must decline.

Now, in any case, I don’t know about you, but when someone says that a “terrifying number” of a certain type of people are out to get you, I get the impression that I need to be concerned about anyone I meet who happens to be from this group. But then again, Sam Harris tends to go back and forth on his views, hence the need for him to dedicate pages of statements clarifying what he meant when he said blah, blah, blah. In the end, Harris comes across as a fear spreading war mongerer to anyone who has an ounce of discernment.

I assume by Arslan assume you mean Raza Aslan. But in the 1 1/2 hour monologue by Sam, Raza is nowhere to be found. Another smokescreen?

Stay Well
Wot

Yes, Raza Aslan. I don’t know why the link isn’t working properly. Anyway, feel free to Google it… it’s not hard to find. So no, not another smokescreen. Why would you say that anyway when my response provides ample evidence for my claim regarding Sam Harris, despite referring to that specific video? Is it that hard for you to face the facts? And you asked me to grow up? Where is your maturity if you can’t accept the truth of a thing when it comes to you?

All the best.

Now Raza Aslan is the guy who failed to unequivocally condemn honor killings. He says it simply requires “more study”. When a Muslim man hires 5 Muslim thugs to strangle his daughter with a shoelace and then burries her in a suitcase 6 feet below the rear patio with the help of his brother, just what study is required to fully understand this? I know, I know, if I studied the Koran more under the guidance of Islamic scholars, I would fully understand this. But that is my fear, not my ambition.
I already watched the video where Sam debates and destroys Raza. No need to provide the link.

Stay Well
Wot

How Sam ‘destroys’ Raza is not very clear. They each have some valid points. But that was not the point of what we were discussing here. Remember, we were talking about Sam Harris’ ignorance/lies about Islam and Muslims. Some of his ignorance is revealed in that debate.

As to honor killings, it has been condemned over and over. I’ve posted an article by Imam Zaid Shakir on this issue already. Like I said, your late in the game. My advice, get educated, or stay silent.

Please point out the specific ignorance displayed by Sam in the Raza debate. You said it, now support it. And do point out where Raza condemns honor killing anywhere. Simply referring me to your “Imam of the Day” just won’t cut it.

Why is it that you continue to accuse everyone of ignorance except yourself. First warning sign you know.
Thanks for your advice to be silent but I must decline.

Stay Well
Wot

I am not surprised you would decline my advice, as it seems your stubborness against accepting the facts is blinding. Now, Raza Aslan is not considered a leader in the Muslim community, but Shaykh Hamza is, and the latter is not just the “Imam of the day” but is considered one of the leading scholars in North America, for several years now.

Now, I have never read anything about Aslan’s views on honor killings, but I will tell you flat out that Islam does not condone such atrocities, and if Aslan does then he does so for his own reasons that have nothing to do with Islam. However, I suspect Aslan would not condone such acts either. Now, why don’t you apply your standards to your self and provide me with evidence where Aslan is in support of honor killings. And remember, just because we can’t find anything where he condemns the act, doesn’t mean he condones it.

As to the specific ignorance in the debate between Harris and Aslan, I already pointed out 40:35 and onwards of the YouTube video, where Sam is criticized by the host for playing loose with words to describe Muslim attitudes going from “most to some” and so forth. Harris cites some polls that show the ‘majority of Muslims’ support terrorist acts, but as I have pointed out before, the recent Gallup poll that surveyed what amounts to 95 percent of the Muslim world showed that only 7% of Muslims saw 9/11 as justifiable, and that too only for political, rather then religious reasons.

Previously, I already explained to you that Harris’ submission that a “terrifying number” of Muslims support terrorism is a euphemism for saying the majority of Muslims support terrorism, and essentially serves to create unjustified fear of anyone who happens to be Muslim.

Given all this, I don’t know why you can’t concede the fact that Harris’ tone towards Islam and Muslims is unjustified because it is largely based on his ignorance of Islam and Muslims, which Aslan rightly points out in that debate. Again, grow up already.

Your views and statements are getting to be just too bizarre to make any sense at all. Here is one of your proposed cures for our rampant ignorance:

Jack said:

Anyway, nothing wrong with fighting for, killing or being killed, for God, if of course, you understand who God is, and what He stands for, which is peace and justice. There are many verses demonstrating this.

Now if this kind of thinking (or rather lack thereof) in anyway represent the what is inside the caverns of the Muslim skull, then I am both alarmed and terrified. My conclusion is that you yourself share a kinship with Muslim terrorist, and therefore support the terrorism. So the supposed 7% just gained one more. Has Sam overstated the concern and the problem? More likely, Sam has understated it.

Your views and statements are getting to be just too bizarre to make any sense at all. Here is one of your proposed cures for our rampant ignorance:

Jack said:

Anyway, nothing wrong with fighting for, killing or being killed, for God, if of course, you understand who God is, and what He stands for, which is peace and justice. There are many verses demonstrating this.

Now if this kind of thinking (or rather lack thereof) in anyway represent the what is inside the caverns of the Muslim skull, then I am both alarmed and terrified. My conclusion is that you yourself share a kinship with Muslim terrorist, and therefore support the terrorism. So the supposed 7% just gained one more. Has Sam overstated the concern and the problem? More likely, Sam has understated it.

Wassail
Wot

My statements are not bizarre, it’s just that you find the truth problematic. And if you think highlighting the above quote from me is evidence of how bizarre my views are I think you fail to make your case and demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic theology.

As to terrorism, I do not condone the killing of innocent people under any circumstances. I do not condone the killing of innocent women and children. Upwards of 90 percent of Muslims are like me in this regard. And the few that do support terrorist acts do so for political, not religious reasons. These are the facts, contrary to Harris’ claims, and I’ve provided ample evidence of this already. Why you can’t accept this by now is very sad. All the best.

Secondly, anyone who is not directly involved in a conflict is innocent. This is all according to Islamic law, which considers all the Qur’anic verses and hadith, not just a few that seem unpalatable to a fickle few.

Taqiyyah-practicing liars all of them.
Why not refer to some Islamic theologians of real importance within the MUslim community, like al-Ghazzali?

Secondly, ... This is all according to Islamic law, which considers all the Qur’anic verses and hadith, not just a few that seem unpalatable to a fickle few.

Aah, yes that nonsense again.

Let’s see, here is the first lines of a wonderful ethics regulation book I found :’

“
1. Do not lie
2. Give sad, crying children a good hug and console them, even if they are not your own.
3. If you have a few money to spare, give them to a person less fortunate than you
4. On fridays, roast a baby in the oven
5. Offer gladly directions to strangers who have lost their way”

Now, the rest of the ethical regulations (all 20000 of them!) are exactly in the same tone as 1,2,3 and 5.

Hence, it IS a wonderful message overall, and regulation 4 only “seems” cruel to those incapable of judging ALL the verses under one view, but instead, rather obstinately, focuses myopically on that particular verse..

The concept and practice of Taqiyya is a new concept for me. Islamic studies sure are enlightening.

Although Taqiyya is generally thought of as a Shi’a term according to principles defined by Shafi’i theologian al-Ghazali, lying, including protection of oneself or others, is permissible under certain circumstances (such as when under death threat):

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” [7]

The full text of al-Ghazali’s book Ihya ulum al-din, is available from alwaraq.net. A copy of the relevant chapter, Ma yurakhkhas min al-kadhib-The extent to which lying is permitted, is also available. A loose translation of some of the passages follows:

Speech is a means to ends. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved by both truth and falsehood, then lying is forbidden. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved only by lying, then it is permissible provided that the achievement of the intended goal is permissible. Lying is mandatory if the intended goal is mandatory, for example, if lying would protect the life of a Muslim. So if telling the truth entails revealing the location of a Muslim hiding from a tyrant, then lying is mandatory, although lying should be avoided if possible. [One should try to avoid lying] because one should not open the door of lying to the soul, as it may be tempted to lie in unnecessary situations, and lying is a priori impermissible except in extreme circumstances.

Jack - Are you a practitioner? It sure would explain a lot of your posts.

The concept and practice of Taqiyya is a new concept for me. Islamic studies sure are enlightening.

Although Taqiyya is generally thought of as a Shi’a term according to principles defined by Shafi’i theologian al-Ghazali, lying, including protection of oneself or others, is permissible under certain circumstances (such as when under death threat):

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” [7]

The full text of al-Ghazali’s book Ihya ulum al-din, is available from alwaraq.net. A copy of the relevant chapter, Ma yurakhkhas min al-kadhib-The extent to which lying is permitted, is also available. A loose translation of some of the passages follows:

Speech is a means to ends. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved by both truth and falsehood, then lying is forbidden. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved only by lying, then it is permissible provided that the achievement of the intended goal is permissible. Lying is mandatory if the intended goal is mandatory, for example, if lying would protect the life of a Muslim. So if telling the truth entails revealing the location of a Muslim hiding from a tyrant, then lying is mandatory, although lying should be avoided if possible. [One should try to avoid lying] because one should not open the door of lying to the soul, as it may be tempted to lie in unnecessary situations, and lying is a priori impermissible except in extreme circumstances.

Jack - Are you a practitioner? It sure would explain a lot of your posts.

Wassail
Wot

The entire catch in that quotation is found in the question of what is an acceptable or obligatory goal. I would accept the statement, with the caveat that it is unacceptable to lie unless one is in a state of absolute clarity as to the nature of the situation and the goal. In particular, it is not acceptable to lie in order to try and spread any religion or ideology even if one firmly believes it to be the only true way. The essay: The Lure of Syracuse, by Mark Lilla (can be found on the internet) is relevant here. People who lie to spread their own beliefs have not yet conquered the “tyrant within.”

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Taqiyyah-practicing liars all of them.
Why not refer to some Islamic theologians of real importance within the MUslim community, like al-Ghazzali?

Secondly, ... This is all according to Islamic law, which considers all the Qur’anic verses and hadith, not just a few that seem unpalatable to a fickle few.

Aah, yes that nonsense again.

Let’s see, here is the first lines of a wonderful ethics regulation book I found :’

“
1. Do not lie
2. Give sad, crying children a good hug and console them, even if they are not your own.
3. If you have a few money to spare, give them to a person less fortunate than you
4. On fridays, roast a baby in the oven
5. Offer gladly directions to strangers who have lost their way”

Now, the rest of the ethical regulations (all 20000 of them!) are exactly in the same tone as 1,2,3 and 5.

Hence, it IS a wonderful message overall, and regulation 4 only “seems” cruel to those incapable of judging ALL the verses under one view, but instead, rather obstinately, focuses myopically on that particular verse..

Aldrino,

I hate to begin my posts this way, but you are a plain idiot, and the post above provides evidence of this yet again. If you bothered to read the links I posted in response to your original post, you will find that the opinions about the fate of non-Muslims is precisely the opinion of Imam Ghazali.

Secondly, the issue of lying to protect oneself makes perfect sense, since preserving one’s own life takes priority over telling the truth. Anyone who would say otherwise has their priorities messed up. That is not to say that one cannot tell the truth and endanger him/herself in doing so, but this is not mandatory in Islamic law.

As far as this forum goes, I have never lied about anything concerning Islam. I don’t know why you would think I need to. It’s ironic that I am being called the liar here. In any case, God is a witness over all things, so give it up Aldrino.

The concept and practice of Taqiyya is a new concept for me. Islamic studies sure are enlightening.

Although Taqiyya is generally thought of as a Shi’a term according to principles defined by Shafi’i theologian al-Ghazali, lying, including protection of oneself or others, is permissible under certain circumstances (such as when under death threat):

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible…, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…” [7]

The full text of al-Ghazali’s book Ihya ulum al-din, is available from alwaraq.net. A copy of the relevant chapter, Ma yurakhkhas min al-kadhib-The extent to which lying is permitted, is also available. A loose translation of some of the passages follows:

Speech is a means to ends. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved by both truth and falsehood, then lying is forbidden. If a praiseworthy end can be achieved only by lying, then it is permissible provided that the achievement of the intended goal is permissible. Lying is mandatory if the intended goal is mandatory, for example, if lying would protect the life of a Muslim. So if telling the truth entails revealing the location of a Muslim hiding from a tyrant, then lying is mandatory, although lying should be avoided if possible. [One should try to avoid lying] because one should not open the door of lying to the soul, as it may be tempted to lie in unnecessary situations, and lying is a priori impermissible except in extreme circumstances.

Jack - Are you a practitioner? It sure would explain a lot of your posts.

Wassail
Wot

Yes, when called on your delusions, call your opponent a liar. Wot, read my response to Aldrino regarding the permissability of lying.

Needless to say, I haven’t lied about anything concerning Islam. Secondly, why would you suggest I have been lying about Islam if everything I have been saying is so distasteful anyway? Surely, if lying was mandatory to bring people into Islam, then you would here Muslims denying facts that appear so unpleasant to people like you (i.e. the prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha).

These accusations all just go to show that you will do anything to avoid facing the truth. Again, this is your problem and I don’t lose any sleep over your inability to grow up. Take care.

Since the goal of defending, and spreading, Islam is MANDATORY for all Muslims within the traditional, and still dominant theology, it follows it is permissible for Muslims to lie whenever the “interests of Islam” is threatened, for example if the image of Islam among unbelievers is deemed “too negative” by Muslims.

Some such as yourself and Wot clearly deem the image of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) marriage to Aisha (God be pleased with her) and his various battles as ‘too negative’, and yet no Muslim denies these. Instead, we just point out the absurdities of your mindset.